This is a general question. By CPU intensive content, I mean auto playing videos, flashes, animated GIFs, low-interval Javascript-controlled image frames which simulate animated GIFs, etc. I can install various ad blockers to block some so that *I* control whether to play them. But the add-ons could cause more problems in terms of memory usage. Why does Firefox not build some commonly requested features into the browser as default so we don't rely on third-party add-on? I like to run FF in safe-mode. But going to sites like dictionary.com causes high CPU usage.

If I understand it correctly, running in safe mode disables all installed addons and plugins. Mostly, I want to block auto playing videos. Tried a couple of AD blockers. They seem to cause memory and CPU issues of their own. I bet a FF that comes with its own blockers wouldn't have such issues.

If I understand it correctly, running in safe mode disables all installed addons and plugins.

No, Safe Mode does nothing to disable plug-ins. Those are installed at the operating system level. And there is no reason to assume that built in blockers would have any fewer issues than the extensions for the same purpose display.

-- What safe-mode does ..... Safe Mode temporarily affects the following:* All extensions are disabled. --- * The userChrome.css and userContent.css files are ignored.* The default theme is used, without a persona. --- * The default toolbar layout is used.* The Just-in-time (JIT) JavaScript compiler is disabled. --- * Hardware acceleration is disabled.

-- Safe Mode has no effect on the following --* The status of plugins is not affected.* Custom preferences are not affected.

-- What safe-mode does ..... Safe Mode temporarily affects the following:* All extensions are disabled. --- * The userChrome.css and userContent.css files are ignored.* The default theme is used, without a persona. --- * The default toolbar layout is used.* The Just-in-time (JIT) JavaScript compiler is disabled. --- * Hardware acceleration is disabled.

-- Safe Mode has no effect on the following --* The status of plugins is not affected.* Custom preferences are not affected.

If you don't want Plugins to run, set them to 'Never Activate' in Addons Manager.Likewise you can set gif animations to never.HTML5, that's harder, & not sure what Prefs to tell you to change on that end?

My main question is, Why does not the Firefox team consider incorporating some popular plugins/add-ons into the default browser build? The developers are smart, open-minded, with no business or commercial motive. And doing so is technically quite easy.

Why does not the Firefox team consider incorporating some popular plugins/add-ons into the default browser build?

Which extensions would be appropriate to become part of the default build. You will probably name half a dozen while the Rube would have half a dozen different ones, and Limpet six still different ones, etc, etc. By the time everyone's favorites are incorporated, the download installer for Firefox would be 800GB in size!

And doing so is technically quite easy.

[/quote]

Not really. Adding in functionality for one extension might be quite easy (or it might not) but combining functionality from multiple extensions, some of which might be similar but not identical to built in functionality, would be much more involved and time consuming. Think of the all of the potential for conflicts when all of the various elements are combined. Bad enough when a user chooses to install a number of extensions, only to have one cripple some portion of the browser. Still worse to try to combine all of those elements gracefully and seamlessly into the core code that everyone will be using.

I imagine it's easy to find the numbers of downloads for each extension. Without the actual statistics, I'm guessing various AD blockers are among the top. So to simplify the choice, either pick the top one or two or build a default AD blocker.

My main question is, Why does not the Firefox team consider incorporating some popular plugins/add-ons into the default browser build? The developers are smart, open-minded, with no business or commercial motive. And doing so is technically quite easy.

NPAPI plugins are gone, except for Flash, in tomorrow's Firefox 52 Release. Edge doesn't use "plugins" and Chrome is or has dumped plugins, too. There's a new way of doing things on the internet, that "replace" the former plugin systems.

And the reason that Mozilla hasn't provided plugins in the past, it that most all plugins are "owned" by other companies - they aren't open source which is part of the Mozilla mission; providing free open source software.

.

A mind is a terrible thing to waste. Mine has wandered off and I'm out looking for it.

yong321 wrote:I imagine it's easy to find the numbers of downloads for each extension. Without the actual statistics, I'm guessing various AD blockers are among the top. So to simplify the choice, either pick the top one or two or build a default AD blocker.

And what about the people like me who don't want a damned intrusive and resource hungry addblocker? Get this through your head "one size does NOT fit all"

Last edited by malliz on March 7th, 2017, 1:14 am, edited 1 time in total.

What sort of man would put a known criminal in charge of a major branch of government? Apart from, say, the average voter."Terry Pratchett"

yong321 wrote:My main question is, Why does not the Firefox team consider incorporating some popular plugins/add-ons into the default browser build? The developers are smart, open-minded, with no business or commercial motive. And doing so is technically quite easy.

yong321 wrote:I imagine it's easy to find the numbers of downloads for each extension. Without the actual statistics, I'm guessing various AD blockers are among the top. So to simplify the choice, either pick the top one or two or build a default AD blocker.

Mozilla has put in a few Extensions over the years however the end result was a a more bare bone version.

The vast majority of Extensions hosted at say addons.mozilla.org are made by a third-party author or company. Ones made by Mozilla would have say Mozilla or Mozilla Labs as the author.

Spellbound for example is or was a good spell checker extension that is made by Robert Strong. Mozilla instead put in the basic inline spell checker you see in Firefox since 2.0, Robert decided to stop working on it due to this along with fact he started working for Mozilla around that time also. My point is we could have gotten something like SpellBound instead of something more bare. http://spellbound.sourceforge.net/